Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

US Lawmakers Reintroduce Bill Barring Any American President From Leaving NATO Alliance

By Gaby Arancibia – Sputnik – 16.04.2021

Under the Trump administration, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a measure in an effort to prevent a sitting US president from withdrawing the nation from a military alliance, specifically NATO. However, the December 2020 initiative was never taken up for a vote by the full US Senate, which was then under Republican control.

A bipartisan group of US senators reintroduced a measure on Thursday that would effectively prevent any sitting American president from removing the Land of the Free from the decades-old NATO military alliance.

The bill was reintroduced into the Democrat-controlled Senate chamber by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), congressional members who both serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The legislation has been sponsored by several Republicans, Democrats and an independent.

The measure’s stipulations indicate that should a president want to withdraw from the alliance, they would need to get at least two-thirds approval from the US Senate.

However, in the event that the commander-in-chief attempts to jump ship without said approval, the bill would then prohibit funding for the withdrawal and authorize the Congressional Legal Counsel to challenge the matter in court.

“NATO has been a critical alliance for nearly 75 years,” Kaine remarked in a statement. “It has ably served the US, our NATO allies, and the world. This bill expresses clear congressional support for the continuing value of NATO and clarifies that no president acting alone can sever the bonds of the alliance.”

In an accompanying statement of his own, Rubio highlighted the importance of the alliance, noting that the military partnership “is more important than ever” in light of “Moscow’s growing subversive aggressions.”

“We must ensure no US president withdraws from NATO without the advice and consent of the Senate,” the lawmaker stressed.

Most recently, Russia’s military build-up along the Ukrainian border has remained under the spotlight, with the troop deployments being labeled a “provocation.” Moscow has rejected claims that the development is an incitement, explaining that the movements are meant to ensure the nation’s national security as NATO has undertaken its own build-up in the region.

A similar measure regarding a potential pullout from the NATO partnership was introduced in December 2019 as a response to former US President Donald Trump’s repeated criticism of the NATO alliance. At the time, Trump blasted NATO allies for not contributing enough funding to the organization, vowing to part ways from the defense block. However, Trump never delivered on the promise and instead referred to the potential withdrawal as “unnecessary.”

At present, any NATO member seeking to withdraw from the group must give a one-year “notice of denunciation” before being able to exit the treaty.

April 16, 2021 Posted by | Militarism, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

White House admits lack of confidence in DEBUNKED story about Russian bounties – after Biden repeatedly used it to attack Trump

RT | April 15, 2021

With Donald Trump safely ousted, US intelligence agencies now admit they have only “low to moderate confidence” that Russia offered bounties on US troops in Afghanistan – yet still demand that the Kremlin answer for the crimes.

“The US intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks against US coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019, including through financial incentives and compensation,” a senior Biden administration official told reporters on Thursday.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed the new assessment in a press briefing, saying reports on the bounties “were enough of a cause of concern that we wanted our intelligence community to look into” the matter. That assessment found “low to moderate confidence” that the allegations were true, she said.

The latest official view marks a sharp contrast to last June, when the New York Times reported as fact – based on anonymous sourcing – that Russia had offered such bounties for Taliban-linked militants to attack US forces. Other outlets “confirmed” the report – which in mainstream-media-speak means that anonymous sources reiterated the allegations to them, not that anything was verified to be true.

With election season heating up, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and other politicians used the issue to bludgeon President Trump for failing to punish Russia. “His entire presidency has been a gift to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, but this is beyond the pale,” Biden said in September. “It’s a betrayal of the most sacred duty we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into harm’s way.”

Asked on Thursday whether President Biden – in light of the current doubts over the allegations against Russia – regretted using the bounty story to attack Trump, Psaki said, “I’m not going to speak to the previous administration.”

Trump and members of his administration had repeatedly pointed out that the bounty allegations were unverified. While the media reporting on the issue cited unidentified “intelligence” officials, the nation’s top intelligence and military chiefs said on the record that the claims were unverified. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, among other officials, told members of Congress in July that the allegations were unconfirmed.

Months of investigation by the US military failed to yield a different answer. Marine Corps General Frank McKenzie, the commander who oversees US troops in Afghanistan, said in September that the military had found nothing to corroborate the bounty allegations. At that point, the probe included a review of every attack on US troops in Afghanistan in the past several years, none of which were linked to Russian incentive payments.

And yet, even as the White House walked back the intelligence community’s assessment of the alleged bounties on Thursday, partly blaming “challenging operating environments,” Psaki suggested that Russia should still be forced to explain its conduct.

“This information really puts the burden on Russia and the Russian government to explain their engagement here,” she said. The unidentified senior official who briefed reporters added that Russia must “take steps to address this disturbing pattern of behavior,” although allegations of that behavior remain in doubt.

The new assessment was offered on the same day that Biden imposed new sanctions against Russian individuals and organizations, as well as expelling 10 Moscow diplomats. The unidentified senior official told reporters that the sanctions were for election interference and the SolarWinds hacking incident – the Kremlin has denied being involved in either case – and added that US concerns over the bounties have been conveyed to Russia in “strong direct messages” through diplomatic, intelligence, and military channels.

Observers on social media noted that the reassessment of the bounty story should further discredit MSM outlets for attacks on Trump that later proved to be false or dubious. Journalist Aaron Mate said today’s White House statements mark “another blockbuster humiliation” for “Russia-gate disinformation outlet” the Daily Beast.

CNN host Jake Tapper was another target of ridicule. “No one should be surprised that Jake Tapper was leading the charge on yet another nonsensical story fabricated by him and other resistance clowns in the media,” journalist Arthur Schwartz said on Twitter.

Schwartz also took a shot at the original purveyor of the story, tweeting: “Hey New York Times PR, you going to let the public know who lied to these reporters? Or did they make it up themselves.”

April 16, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | , | 1 Comment

US Rationale Behind New Russia Sanctions ‘Shockingly Shallow’, Think Tank Says

Sputnik – 16.04.2021

The latest round of sanctions against Russia casts doubt on both the competence and judgment of US President Joe Biden with the rationale behind the measures being so astonishingly shallow, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Director Daniel McAdams told Sputnik.

“The rationale behind the sanctions is shockingly shallow,” McAdams said. “Crimea was seven years ago. The US intelligence community itself says it cannot find proof for claims that Russia put bounties on the heads of US soldiers in Afghanistan. There has been no evidence provided to back the claims about the SolarWinds breach or the claims that Russia was interfering in the 2020 election. The whole thing is a farce and, worryingly, it seems they know it and just don’t care.”

Earlier on Thursday, the US expelled 10 Russian diplomats and slapped new sanctions on dozens of Russian nationals and companies. It also moved to raise Russia’s borrowing costs by barring US entities from buying bonds directly from Russia.

McAdams said the problem is that there are no good answers to describe this “level of incompetence.”

“We became used to the president saying one thing and his staff doing something different during the Trump Administration, but this is taking that disconnect to a whole new level,” he stated.McAdams also expressed doubt that the planned meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden will take place following Washington’s decision to slap sanctions against Moscow.

“The meeting will be off. At least for the near future,” he said. “There is no way Putin could ignore the hostility of a new round of sanctions and the launching of economic warfare against the ruble.”

He also said that there is no “imaginable rational goal coming out of Washington’s foreign policy circles regarding Russia.”

“This is a time when everyone believes their own propaganda,” he noted. “It is a closed loop with no original thinking. Keep doing the same thing and expect different results next time. It is testimony to the intellectual and creative bankruptcy among who call themselves the ‘experts.'”

McAdams said that severing diplomatic relations is an extreme move but “not far off at the rate we are going.”

“I also wonder whether these snap sanctions do not have something to do with Ukraine’s recent back-down from its collision course with Russia,” McAdams added. “Are there factions in the US Administration who are pushing for a Russia/Ukraine open conflict – perhaps the neocons – and other factions seeking to calm the crisis? Are the new sanctions a form of US lashing out at Russia over the latter seemingly prevailing in this round of the Moscow/Kiev face-off?”

The Russian Foreign Ministry said the US government’s actions are contrary to its declared intention to build pragmatic relations with Russia. The Foreign Ministry has notified US Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan that Moscow’s retaliatory measures will be announced soon.

April 16, 2021 Posted by | Russophobia | | Leave a comment

“Unprecedented Levels of Sickness”, Says NHS Consultant and “Whole Teams Being Taken Out”

Behind the cover-up and spin, the stark reality. 

By Brandon Campbell | Ultimate Survival | April 14, 2021

The doctor who wrote it isn’t an “anti-vaxxer” (whatever that is exactly), a “conspiracy theorist” or “Covid denyer” or any of other other puerile labels hastily attached by the Vaccine Faction to anyone with the guts to speak out.

He is a conscientious medical doctor working on the front lines and observing at first hand what is happening to people who take the experimental vaccines and pseudo vaccines being recklessly pushed on them by the government.

As he rightly points out, if so many serious adverse reactions are already occurring in the short term, what lies in store for the vaccinated in the long term?

We would point out also that if so many, varied and extremely serious adverse reactions are occurring in the immediate-term that were not predicted and of which we were not forewarned, how sloppy has been the research and trials that preceded the release of these biochemical agents?

As the long term tests and trials were not done, nobody knows what is going to happen in the long term.

It is usual to do the trials and tests before releasing a medicine for general use. That way, if the research is done properly, we have a reasonable idea of how great are the risks and likelihood of adverse events.

An understanding of the true extent of the risks can then be assessed against how great are the risks of the disease.

The third factor is an understanding of whether the vax actually works in terms of doing what is claimed for other jabs (polio, measles, meningitis etc etc) and that is RENDERING YOU IMMUNE to the disease. By immune it is generally understood to mean what it says in Dictionary.com:

  • protected from a disease or the like, as by inoculation.
  • of or relating to the production of antibodies or lymphocytes that can react with a specific antigen.
  • exempt or protected.
  • not responsive or susceptible.

In the case of the Covid vaccines and pseudo vaccines, we get the following:

True extent of the risks:

Short-, medium- and long-term adverse effects not known. We simply cannot evaluate how much of a risk we are taking when we get the jab. A crude analogy is that of playing Russian Roulette without knowing how many bullets are in the chamber (one, two, four, none etc).

How dangerous is the disease being vaccinated against:

The government spin tries to paint the bug as deadly even though for the vast majority it isn’t. Untreated, however, it can be deadly for the elderly and already very ill and so forth, although the “with COVID” fatality stats issued by the government are clearly designed to mislead as had been covered by no end of commentators.

However, this second factor is where probably the greatest deceit lies: the painting of Covid19 as deadly.

Treatments for Covid have been know from the outset but suppressed or steadfastly ignored in every government ad, pronouncement or briefing so as to create the myth that the vaxes are “our only chance” or “our only way out of this”.

This is simply a calculated, cynical bare-faced lie. Known remedies, had they not been withheld ,would have reduced to near zero the risk of fatality from this very treatable bug. The best analogy I can think of is hiding or secretly destroying ninety percent of the food supply then declaring a famine and convincing everybody how great is their personal risk of dying of starvation.

So if the known, safe and effective treatments (that have been getting very effective results where conscientious frontline doctors have used them) had not been suppressed, we would not have had a situation in which we would be deciding whether to be vaxed because the bug would have been routinely dealt with using known medications that have been around for decades and have in all that time had no safety issues. The serious illnesses would have been at least eighty percent fewer and fatalities almost zero.

We would in, other words, have been making an informed choice as to whether to use an unproven vaccine still in the experimental stage and only authorised for emergency use and thus of uncertain risk levels (yet producing enough adverse events to cry out for caution) against the almost zero risk from a routinely treatable bug.

In fact there would have been no emergency to justify the use of experimental vaccines recklessly rushed into the marketplace.

In other words, this entire emergency with its rushed and highly suspicious vaccines, lockdowns, illnesses, fear relentlessly drummed into us by the media, fatalities, economic destruction, and so forth ad nauseam, this whole scenario derives not from the alleged pandemic but from the government’s negligence or malice aforethought in keeping the highly workable, effective and safe remedies away from the public.

The government alleges that 120,000 people have been killed by this bug. Well, if those numbers are to be believed, then around 90,000 (80 percent) or more of those would not have died had the remedies been made available and backed by the same investment of money, resources and energy as that devoted to the vax roll out, the test and trace and the propaganda blitz designed to terrify the people.

Thus the government has killed around 90,000  people through its own wilful negligence and when the full effects of the booby-trapped vaccines make themselves felt over the next few years, God-alone-knows how many more.

And bear in mind too, as if the above mentioned ineptitude and homicidal skulduggery were not enough, there is STILL a third factor to be taken into account, uncertainty as to whether the unneeded vaxes even work in terms of rendering you immune to the bug.

But our conjecture is all very well, so let’s hear what a medical doctor working with this fiasco on the front lines has to say. And as you read this bear in mind the pressure that is put on medical staff to keep quiet, so much so that any doctor or nurse speaking out knows they are doing do so at considerable personal risk. It speaks volumes both of their heroism and of the seriousness of what they are witnessing.

Rapid Response:

Re: Do doctors have to have the covid-19 vaccine?

Important editorial notice for readers: This is a rapid response (online comment by a third party) and not an article in The BMJ. It is attributed in a misleading way on certain websites and social media. The Editor, 08/04/2021.

I have had more vaccines in my life than most people and come from a place of significant personal and professional experience in relation to this pandemic, having managed a service during the first 2 waves and all the contingencies that go with that.

Nevertheless, what I am currently struggling with is the failure to report the reality of the morbidity caused by our current vaccination program within the health service and staff population. The levels of sickness after vaccination is unprecedented and staff are getting very sick and some with neurological symptoms which is having a huge impact on the health service function. Even the young and healthy are off for days, some for weeks, and some requiring medical treatment. Whole teams are being taken out as they went to get vaccinated together.

Mandatory vaccination in this instance is stupid, unethical and irresponsible when it comes to protecting our staff and public health. We are in the voluntary phase of vaccination, and encouraging staff to take an unlicensed product that is impacting on their immediate health, and I have direct experience of staff contracting Covid AFTER vaccination and probably transmitting it. In fact, it is clearly stated that these vaccine products do not offer immunity or stop transmission. In which case why are we doing it?

There is no longitudinal safety data (a couple of months of trial data at best) available and these products are only under emergency licensing. What is to say that there are no longitudinal adverse effects that we may face that may put the entire health sector at risk?

Flu is a massive annual killer, it inundates the health system, it kills young people, the old the comorbid, and yet people can chose whether or not they have that vaccine (which had been around for a long time). And you can list a whole number of other examples of vaccines that are not mandatory and yet they protect against diseases of higher consequence.

Coercion and mandating medical treatments on our staff, of members of the public especially when treatments are still in the experimental phase, are firmly in the realms of a totalitarian Nazi dystopia and fall far outside of our ethical values as the guardians of health.

I and my entire family have had COVID. This as well as most of my friends, relatives and colleagues. I have recently lost a relatively young family member with comorbidities to heart failure, resulting from the pneumonia caused by Covid.

Despite this, I would never debase myself and agree, that we should abandon our liberal principles and the international stance on bodily sovereignty, free informed choice and human rights and support unprecedented coercion of professionals, patients and people to have experimental treatments with limited safety data. This and the policies that go with this are more of a danger to our society than anything else we have faced over the last year.

What has happened to “my body my choice?” What has happened to scientific and open debate? If I don’t prescribe an antibiotic to a patient who doesn’t need it as they are healthy, am I anti-antibiotics? Or an antibiotic-denier? Is it not time that people truly thought about what is happening to us and where all of this is taking us?

April 16, 2021 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

    Next Entries »